Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

I think Connors' forehand was more inconsistent in rallies, particularly soft rallies, than it was on the return, though I agree his BH return was better and more consistent.

Yes in general terms Connors and Rosewall's returns must be on the same level.

What I think about, though, are all the powerful serves that I saw Connors blast back with interest even in his 30s. I remember him facing monster serves from Bobo Zivojinovic, serves that looked like no one could get them back -- and he'd not only reach them but send them back for winners.

To repeat, Rosewall's ability to deal with power is too often underestimated, and I don't want to do that; but I can't imagine anyone better at dealing with powerful serves than Connors.

This is where I would want some footage of Rosewall/Hoad matches, to be able to compare more specifically. We know Rosewall could handle Hoad's serve phenomenally well; but you'd still love to have the footage showing exactly how he did it.

Click to expand...

There is a 20-minute section of the 1956 Wimbledon final, which shows the contrasting styles, of Hoad and Rosewall. Available on the internet.

I think Connors' forehand was more inconsistent in rallies, particularly soft rallies, than it was on the return, though I agree his BH return was better and more consistent.

Yes in general terms Connors and Rosewall's returns must be on the same level.

What I think about, though, are all the powerful serves that I saw Connors blast back with interest even in his 30s. I remember him facing monster serves from Bobo Zivojinovic, serves that looked like no one could get them back -- and he'd not only reach them but send them back for winners.

To repeat, Rosewall's ability to deal with power is too often underestimated, and I don't want to do that; but I can't imagine anyone better at dealing with powerful serves than Connors.

This is where I would want some footage of Rosewall/Hoad matches, to be able to compare more specifically. We know Rosewall could handle Hoad's serve phenomenally well; but you'd still love to have the footage showing exactly how he did it.

Talking about the huge aussie troop of champions im the 50 and 60 there has never been a mention about Mervyn Rose, who won Roland Garros and had great results at other cc events of that time
He was also part of a very good team along Rex Hartwig and a Hoad and Rosewall contemporary.Does anybody recall Mervyn Rose?

I wonder that Gonzales tired in that rather short match considering that he won tough five-setters in 1964 (beating Rosewall after 73 games), 1970 (defeating Laver) and as late as 1972 (beating Goven).

Click to expand...

Endurance was normally not his weakness, so it must have been the attack of "heat prostration" (something short of heat stroke, as I understand) in the Trabert semifinal. Danzig does not mention that, however, despite giving a detailed report on their semi.

I can tell you how he did it. He stood in close and blocked the ball back using his opponent's power against him with immaculate timing and technique. That's one reason Rosewall wasn't as effective against Connors' serve as he was against others like Ashe, Newcombe and Smith. Connors' didn't have that much power for Rosewall to work with, and it had a big lefty curve on it.

Click to expand...

True, and another reason was that Connors did not come in very much behind his serve. If he had tried coming in all the time behind that off-pace serve of his, he would have been more vulnerable to getting passed on the return.

It is incredible how dense was Hopman's troop
A country with much less of 10% US population literally vomiting seas of champions during 25 consecutive years!!!
Nobody talks about secondary yet true champions such as Rose,Quist,Mc Gregor or Stolle to name a very few
There has never been anything like that, either you like it or not, in the whole history of sports.There should be an only down under HOF

I once read that Mervyn Rose could do the best spring and jump ups during Hopman's training regimen. He was a tricky lefthander, who could do well on all surfaces. In the book Tennis-the Australian Way, he wrote the chapter on surfaces.

Some other thing regarding Danzig. Its quite weird, that Danzig, who saw the pros so much in their heydays, rated them so low. Laver is 8 th, Gonzalez 10 th (equal with Emerson), Hoad Rosewall are not rated alltogether.

I once read that Mervyn Rose could do the best spring and jump ups during Hopman's training regimen. He was a tricky lefthander, who could do well on all surfaces. In the book Tennis-the Australian Way, he wrote the chapter on surfaces.

Some other thing regarding Danzig. Its quite weird, that Danzig, who saw the pros so much in their heydays, rated them so low. Laver is 8 th, Gonzalez 10 th (equal with Emerson), Hoad Rosewall are not rated alltogether.

Click to expand...

I think Danzig preferred top baseliners to top serve and volleryer. Tilden was his top choice followed by Cochet, Budge and Lacoste. The first serve and volleyer was Kramer who also had very good groundstrokes.

I bet most of you don't know, Hoad tried cocaine during his playing days. He mentions it on page 186 of his autobiography My Game published in 1958

Click to expand...

This is very far from the truth - he didn't "try" cocaine as you put it.

Dr Skougal, one of Australia's leading experts on sporting experts, took xrays of Hoad's back and did a series of tests in which he deadened parts of his back with cocaine injections, seeking to isolate the precise trouble spot. After that, Hoad was put in a plaster cast for six weeks.

Since you already knew all of that, having quoted the exact page number, I cannot understand why you made this post, other than to try to blacken Hoad's character.

This is very far from the truth - he didn't "try" cocaine as you put it.

Dr Skougal, one of Australia's leading experts on sporting experts, took xrays of Hoad's back and did a series of tests in which he deadened parts of his back with cocaine injections, seeking to isolate the precise trouble spot. After that, Hoad was put in a plaster cast for six weeks.

Since you already knew all of that, having quoted the exact page number, I cannot understand why you made this post, other than to try to blacken Hoad's character.

P.S. I see that this is the second time you've posted this crap!

Click to expand...

I don't care who gave it to him. He knowingly used cocaine. He could have said "wait a minute. I don't want any cocaine". It's not like he was an East German female Olympic swimmer in 1976 who was given steroids without being told what it was. I'm not judging him. I didn't say it's a bad thing. Nothing wrong with it.
I resent you using the word "blacken" in a negative way. I think it tells us something about you.

While Danzig is a living bible IMO Bellamy, Maskell and above all Master Tingay are the best ever ones
Trengove,Tommassi,Hallstrom,Collins,Evans,Tingay,Couvercelle and Scaramagna are worth true respect
Bodo and Mewsham were good journalist but not true experts and are not too reliable

While Danzig is a living bible IMO Bellamy, Maskell and above all Master Tingay are the best ever ones
Trengove,Tommassi,Hallstrom,Collins,Evans,Tingay,Couvercelle and Scaramagna are worth true respect
Bodo and Mewsham were good journalist but not true experts and are not too reliable

Tingay is the GOAT for the rest of his mates

Click to expand...

Second time I mentioned Tingay I meant Ted Tingling, one of the best andmost amazing experts

This is very far from the truth - he didn't "try" cocaine as you put it.

Dr Skougal, one of Australia's leading experts on sporting experts, took xrays of Hoad's back and did a series of tests in which he deadened parts of his back with cocaine injections, seeking to isolate the precise trouble spot. After that, Hoad was put in a plaster cast for six weeks.

Since you already knew all of that, having quoted the exact page number, I cannot understand why you made this post, other than to try to blacken Hoad's character.

P.S. I see that this is the second time you've posted this crap!

Click to expand...

thank you for clarifying that for those like me who didn´t know.
He had me going there for a minute, thinking that Lew Hoad actually tried cocaine

thank you for clarifying that for those like me who didn´t know.
He had me going there for a minute, thinking that Lew Hoad actually tried cocaine

Click to expand...

Many top players of the 70 and 80 tried it ocasionally since it was trendy and you could not say you never tasted it.That was obvious and some pros like ATP President Harold Solomon were so much concerned about
But it was an ocasional thing and when Noah acussed Pecci fellow pros stood up and defended Pecci.
I remember vividly the lines around Victor eyes...but suddenly I remember the way Noah pkayed and acted in the 83 FO final and I smile at the irony

I once read that Mervyn Rose could do the best spring and jump ups during Hopman's training regimen. He was a tricky lefthander, who could do well on all surfaces. In the book Tennis-the Australian Way, he wrote the chapter on surfaces.

Some other thing regarding Danzig. Its quite weird, that Danzig, who saw the pros so much in their heydays, rated them so low. Laver is 8 th, Gonzalez 10 th (equal with Emerson), Hoad Rosewall are not rated alltogether.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a scandal as some other rankings of prominent experts are.

I claim that some experts here on talk tennis have made more reasonable lists than Danzig, Tingay, Hopman and similary "stars" have made.

While Danzig is a living bible IMO Bellamy, Maskell and above all Master Tingay are the best ever ones
Trengove,Tommassi,Hallstrom,Collins,Evans,Tingay,Couvercelle and Scaramagna are worth true respect
Bodo and Mewsham were good journalist but not true experts and are not too reliable

Tingay is the GOAT for the rest of his mates

Click to expand...

I disagree. Tingay used to put the Wimbledon winner at top place even when he did not much elsewhere. Look Newcombe for 1970s. Thus he belittled Rosewall and Laver.

Tingay also almost never put two or three players at the same place. He only did it regarding tenth place sometimes. In my opinion the years 1970 to 1973 did not have a clear No.1. Also other years (1977!).

I don't care who gave it to him. He knowingly used cocaine. He could have said "wait a minute. I don't want any cocaine". It's not like he was an East German female Olympic swimmer in 1976 who was given steroids without being told what it was. I'm not judging him. I didn't say it's a bad thing. Nothing wrong with it.
I resent you using the word "blacken" in a negative way. I think it tells us something about you.

Click to expand...

No, the fact that you gave only a small part of the truth, shows something about you. And now all you can do is mouth excuses.

His greatest tour was against Lew Hoad. Gonzales was behind 21 matches to 9 [actually 18-9, later 18-11, still later 20-16] on their 1957-58 tour, even though he was at his peak and playing a less experienced Hoad. The Australian was getting to his backhand. Says Hoad: “Gonzales was not a top-class backhand shotmaker, but he could control his backhand. It couldn’t hurt you, but he could set up the ball for forehand winners with it, and he had a tremendous forehand.”

He adds that because of Pancho’s hammer grip he could hit backhands only “up the sideline.” Hoad would force this side and just cut it off at the net. It looked like the tour was going to be a runaway as Hoad was getting stronger match by match. Once a player gets that far behind on a pro tour it is difficult to catch up; the leader has the psychological momentum.

At 21 to 9 Gonzales did an amazing thing – he changed his backhand grip. A grip is so fundamental to a tennis player that a change of this sort in the middle of a tour is unheard of; yet Gonzales did it. He knew he would have to hit crosscourt off the backhand or he’d never close the gap. Almost overnight he moved his hand to the back of the handle in the approved Eastern backhand fashion and started hitting crosscourt too.

His greatest match against Hoad was on May 5, 1958, in the U.S. Professional tournament. After losing the first two sets, 3-6, 4-6, Pancho – a few days away from his thirtieth birthday – managed to call on all his experience to edge the much younger Australian powerhouse in a fantastic 14-12 third set. This was the turning point of the match and eventually the tour; Pancho ran out the next two sets 6-1, 6-4. The tour ended with Gonzales ahead 51 matches to 37.

The grip shift was only on groundstroke exchanges; on returning service he struck to his hammer grip on both sides. The automatic reflex for the backhand switch on a service return has to be acquired early. A weird psychology is at work here; the grip change takes only a split second, but to the unaccustomed it seems an eternity. Budge, Riggs, Tilden, Schroeder, Patty, Kramer, and Trabert did it effortlessly; Gonzales realized it was too late in his career unconsciously to change grips on returning serve; however, the baseline duels allowed time for the adjustment. Also his old-style backhand was well-suited for handling kick second serves because it was a shorter, more deceptive stroke than a regular Eastern backhand.​

Interesting account but it raises one question for me: how was Hoad able to take an even greater lead on Pancho (13-5) the following year?

I disagree. Tingay used to put the Wimbledon winner at top place even when he did not much elsewhere. Look Newcombe for 1970s. Thus he belittled Rosewall and Laver.

Tingay also almost never put two or three players at the same place. He only did it regarding tenth place sometimes. In my opinion the years 1970 to 1973 did not have a clear No.1. Also other years (1977!).

His greatest tour was against Lew Hoad. Gonzales was behind 21 matches to 9 [actually 18-9, later 18-11, still later 20-16] on their 1957-58 tour, even though he was at his peak and playing a less experienced Hoad. The Australian was getting to his backhand. Says Hoad: “Gonzales was not a top-class backhand shotmaker, but he could control his backhand. It couldn’t hurt you, but he could set up the ball for forehand winners with it, and he had a tremendous forehand.”

He adds that because of Pancho’s hammer grip he could hit backhands only “up the sideline.” Hoad would force this side and just cut it off at the net. It looked like the tour was going to be a runaway as Hoad was getting stronger match by match. Once a player gets that far behind on a pro tour it is difficult to catch up; the leader has the psychological momentum.

At 21 to 9 Gonzales did an amazing thing – he changed his backhand grip. A grip is so fundamental to a tennis player that a change of this sort in the middle of a tour is unheard of; yet Gonzales did it. He knew he would have to hit crosscourt off the backhand or he’d never close the gap. Almost overnight he moved his hand to the back of the handle in the approved Eastern backhand fashion and started hitting crosscourt too.

His greatest match against Hoad was on May 5, 1958, in the U.S. Professional tournament. After losing the first two sets, 3-6, 4-6, Pancho – a few days away from his thirtieth birthday – managed to call on all his experience to edge the much younger Australian powerhouse in a fantastic 14-12 third set. This was the turning point of the match and eventually the tour; Pancho ran out the next two sets 6-1, 6-4. The tour ended with Gonzales ahead 51 matches to 37.

The grip shift was only on groundstroke exchanges; on returning service he struck to his hammer grip on both sides. The automatic reflex for the backhand switch on a service return has to be acquired early. A weird psychology is at work here; the grip change takes only a split second, but to the unaccustomed it seems an eternity. Budge, Riggs, Tilden, Schroeder, Patty, Kramer, and Trabert did it effortlessly; Gonzales realized it was too late in his career unconsciously to change grips on returning serve; however, the baseline duels allowed time for the adjustment. Also his old-style backhand was well-suited for handling kick second serves because it was a shorter, more deceptive stroke than a regular Eastern backhand.​

Interesting account but it raises one question for me: how was Hoad able to take an even greater lead on Pancho (13-5) the following year?

Click to expand...

To me it raises a different question: How could one player so great have such an extreme hole in his game? It's good that he rectified it but I find it *utterly ludicrous* that this was such a chronic problem in the first place (This being his backhand options).

To me it raises a different question: How could one player so great have such an extreme hole in his game? It's good that he rectified it but I find it *utterly ludicrous* that this was such a chronic problem in the first place (This being his backhand options).

Click to expand...

Nathaniel,

I'm not so sure that it was an extreme hole but it was a problem against a player who has the power to force it like Hoad. Kramer apparently with his great sidespin down the line forehand could force it also but against all others I think he could hit crosscourt.

The backhand down the line was his more natural shot because of his hammer grip.

I guess you can compare it to Federer's backhand against Nadal. Not really an extreme hole but against Nadal it was very extreme.

This is why I am often reluctant to pick Gonzalez peak because he did learn to hit better crosscourt on the backhand when he played Hoad but he may have had better years earlier stat wise.

I'm not so sure that it was an extreme hole but it was a problem against a player who has the power to force it like Hoad. Kramer apparently with his great sidespin down the line forehand could force it also but against all others I think he could hit crosscourt.

The backhand down the line was his more natural shot because of his hammer grip.

I guess you can compare it to Federer's backhand against Nadal. Not really an extreme hole but against Nadal it was very extreme.

This is why I am often reluctant to pick Gonzalez peak because he did learn to hit better crosscourt on the backhand when he played Hoad but he may have had better years earlier stat wise.

Click to expand...

Hoad always claimed that Gonzales' peak was in 1958 and 1959, when Gonzales was 29-31 years old, and had everything.

Hoad always claimed that Gonzales' peak was in 1958 and 1959, when Gonzales was 29-31 years old, and had everything.

Click to expand...

Gonzales' peak in terms of results was 1956, with the way he thrashed Trabert 74-27 and then won the Wembley Pro, US Pro and Tournament of Champions. He also lost a 5-set final at the French Pro. Hoad was a tough stylistic matchup for Gonzales, certainly, and he had to improve his backhand to stop Hoad exploiting that side.

Gonzales' peak in terms of results was 1956, with the way he thrashed Trabert 74-27 and then won the Wembley Pro, US Pro and Tournament of Champions. He also lost a 5-set final at the French Pro. Hoad was a tough stylistic matchup for Gonzales, certainly, and he had to improve his backhand to stop Hoad exploiting that side.

Click to expand...

The field was much weaker in 1956, and the lineup of players at the Forest Hills T of C much stronger.

Interesting account but it raises one question for me: how was Hoad able to take an even greater lead on Pancho (13-5) the following year?[/QUOTE]

First, in the 1958 US Pro final, Hoad led two sets to none and was closing out the match when he pulled thigh muscles, which not only cost him the match, but continued to bother him on the tour.
Hoad himself used the same grip for ALL strokes, and did not have to shift forehand to backhand shots.
In 1959, Hoad paced himself better than in 1958, and when he led the series with Gonzales 13-5, and felt his back beginning to bother him, he coasted to rest his back, winning 15-13, and playing over 150 matches on the year.
In the two 1959 world championship tours, his combined record was 76 wins and 33 losses, against the toughest lineup of pros ever assembled. That is a 70% success rate, comparable to what Kramer and Gonzales achieved on their lopsided tour wins.

His greatest tour was against Lew Hoad. Gonzales was behind 21 matches to 9 [actually 18-9, later 18-11, still later 20-16] on their 1957-58 tour, even though he was at his peak and playing a less experienced Hoad. The Australian was getting to his backhand. Says Hoad: “Gonzales was not a top-class backhand shotmaker, but he could control his backhand. It couldn’t hurt you, but he could set up the ball for forehand winners with it, and he had a tremendous forehand.”

He adds that because of Pancho’s hammer grip he could hit backhands only “up the sideline.” Hoad would force this side and just cut it off at the net. It looked like the tour was going to be a runaway as Hoad was getting stronger match by match. Once a player gets that far behind on a pro tour it is difficult to catch up; the leader has the psychological momentum.

At 21 to 9 Gonzales did an amazing thing – he changed his backhand grip. A grip is so fundamental to a tennis player that a change of this sort in the middle of a tour is unheard of; yet Gonzales did it. He knew he would have to hit crosscourt off the backhand or he’d never close the gap. Almost overnight he moved his hand to the back of the handle in the approved Eastern backhand fashion and started hitting crosscourt too.

His greatest match against Hoad was on May 5, 1958, in the U.S. Professional tournament. After losing the first two sets, 3-6, 4-6, Pancho – a few days away from his thirtieth birthday – managed to call on all his experience to edge the much younger Australian powerhouse in a fantastic 14-12 third set. This was the turning point of the match and eventually the tour; Pancho ran out the next two sets 6-1, 6-4. The tour ended with Gonzales ahead 51 matches to 37.

The grip shift was only on groundstroke exchanges; on returning service he struck to his hammer grip on both sides. The automatic reflex for the backhand switch on a service return has to be acquired early. A weird psychology is at work here; the grip change takes only a split second, but to the unaccustomed it seems an eternity. Budge, Riggs, Tilden, Schroeder, Patty, Kramer, and Trabert did it effortlessly; Gonzales realized it was too late in his career unconsciously to change grips on returning serve; however, the baseline duels allowed time for the adjustment. Also his old-style backhand was well-suited for handling kick second serves because it was a shorter, more deceptive stroke than a regular Eastern backhand.​

Interesting account but it raises one question for me: how was Hoad able to take an even greater lead on Pancho (13-5) the following year?

Click to expand...

Vines' account is contradicted by Kramer, who describes how the turnaround in results was caused by Hoad's back problem.
This explains the sudden change in fortunes.
In 1959, Hoad led at 13-5 until, again, his back acted up.

Vines' account is contradicted by Kramer, who describes how the turnaround in results was caused by Hoad's back problem.
This explains the sudden change in fortunes.
In 1959, Hoad led at 13-5 until, again, his back acted up.

Click to expand...

Kramer and Gonzales are old rivals. Kramer wanted Gonzales to lose his crown as the best player on the professional tour. Are you sure you trust Kramer's account more than Vines' account?

Kramer and Gonzales are old rivals. Kramer wanted Gonzales to lose his crown as the best player on the professional tour. Are you sure you trust Kramer's account more than Vines' account?

Click to expand...

According to Hoad's book, it was at the Tennis Club at Palm Springs where his back acted up, and the series turned around from that night. The score was 18 to 8 at that point, and Kramer believed that the result would be inevitable, as Gonzales had given up hope.
This is not to say that Vines' story is completely wrong, and Gonzales may have improved his game during the tour. But the drastic turnaround was due to Hoad's back.
Hoad would still win almost $200,000 in 1958 alone from prize-money, as his contract paid him more for a win than Gonzales' contract.
Despite the millions that Hoad and Gonzales won in tennis earnings, they were both school dropouts and lacking in financial skills, and both were temporarily broke when they died, in Hoad's case from trusting an old friend in a bankrupt commercial plaza deal.

McCauley does not provide a source for these numbers.
Also, McCauley is wrong for the 1959 tour. The final event at Kooyong was played in the last week of 1959, and ended on New Yera's day 1960.

Click to expand...

Dan, Why do you repeat your doubt again and again? You are the only one who doubts that 14:14 balance given by McCauley. It also concured with a 10:8 balance earlier which I had found in British Lawn Tennis and Badminton.

Dan, Why do you repeat your doubt again and again? You are the only one who doubts that 14:14 balance given by McCauley. It also concured with a 10:8 balance earlier which I had found in British Lawn Tennis and Badminton.

Click to expand...

McCauley does not give a final number for the 1957 European tour, nor a source for the 14 to 14 number. He states that the 14 to 14 was in DECEMBER, and represented the full year, not the European tour. McCauley only lists 16 matches for 1957 between Hoad and Rosewall, with at least 12 matches unaccounted for. What happened to these 12 missing matches, and where were they played? Plenty of room here for Kramer's claim that Hoad won two-thirds of the European matches, on red shale clay, no less!
McCauley reports Hoad and Rosewall being tied at 3 wins each on the European tour as of Oct. 19, with no further reports until Nov. 15, and that means that there was about 20 days for the European tour to continue unreported, and plenty of space for Hoad to win two-thirds of his matches with Rosewall.
What was the date given for the supposed 10 to 8 number?
And how did McCauley miss the dates for the December 1959 Kooyong event? This is very strange.

McCauley does not give a final number for the 1957 European tour, nor a source for the 14 to 14 number. He states that the 14 to 14 was in DECEMBER, and represented the full year, not the European tour. McCauley only lists 16 matches for 1957 between Hoad and Rosewall, with at least 12 matches unaccounted for. What happened to these 12 missing matches, and where were they played? Plenty of room here for Kramer's claim that Hoad won two-thirds of the European matches, on red shale clay, no less!
McCauley reports Hoad and Rosewall being tied at 3 wins each on the European tour as of Oct. 19, with no further reports until Nov. 15, and that means that there was about 20 days for the European tour to continue unreported, and plenty of space for Hoad to win two-thirds of his matches with Rosewall.
What was the date given for the supposed 10 to 8 number?
And how did McCauley miss the dates for the December 1959 Kooyong event? This is very strange.

Click to expand...

Consider also, that Hoad lost his first several matches to Rosewall in the U.S. and Britain, and apparently lost most of the Asian tour matches to Rosewall, so how could the final number for 1957 be 14 to 14?
Obviously, Hoad must have won most of the European matches against Rosewall. Simple math, my friend!

Consider also, that Hoad lost his first several matches to Rosewall in the U.S. and Britain, and apparently lost most of the Asian tour matches to Rosewall, so how could the final number for 1957 be 14 to 14?
Obviously, Hoad must have won most of the European matches against Rosewall. Simple math, my friend!

Click to expand...

"Strange" Dan, you once wrote that Hoad beat Rosewall on clay 16:7. This balance is impossible if you accept the 14:14 December 3rd hth.

Unfortunately I can't give you the exact date of the 10:8 balance. But I assure you I have read it long ago in British Lawn tennis and Badminton magazine. It concures with the 14:14 balance.

I'm not so sure. Maybe not about "promoting," but Kramer does seem to have a few idiosyncratic opinions occasionally that serve to elevate or diminish certain players in the history of the game.

(The only common thread can detect among them is that it appears that he wishes to diminish the reputations/achievements of those who might be compared with himself.)

Click to expand...

He seems to be very negative about both Gonzales and Hoad.
He claims that Hoad "didn't give a damn" about less important events, and "was never very interested in tennis", an opinion echoed by Laver this year. He rates Hoad and Laver in the second level tier of greatness, below even Perry. This cannot be serious.
He rates Gonzales below several players as well, including Hoad when playing well. Again, hard to believe.

"Strange" Dan, you once wrote that Hoad beat Rosewall on clay 16:7. This balance is impossible if you accept the 14:14 December 3rd hth.

Unfortunately I can't give you the exact date of the 10:8 balance. But I assure you I have read it long ago in British Lawn tennis and Badminton magazine. It concures with the 14:14 balance.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we do not have comprehensive numbers to reach a conclusion, but if we take the 14 to 14 number, and note that McCauley lists 3 wins for Hoad in a partial view of the European tour, and 3 more in Asia and Australia, then it follows that Hoad could have won 8 more matches against Rosewall on the 20 unreported days of the European tour, that is, 11 wins against Rosewall on the European tour. So it could have been 11 to 5 for Hoad on European red shale clay. (If you deduct from this the five-set final on clay in Cairo, it would be 10 to 5 in Europe, exactly what Kramer reported.)

Unfortunately, we do not have comprehensive numbers to reach a conclusion, but if we take the 14 to 14 number, and note that McCauley lists 3 wins for Hoad in a partial view of the European tour, and 3 more in Asia and Australia, then it follows that Hoad could have won 8 more matches against Rosewall on the 20 unreported days of the European tour, that is, 11 wins against Rosewall on the European tour. So it could have been 11 to 5 for Hoad on European red shale clay. (If you deduct from this the five-set final on clay in Cairo, it would be 10 to 5 in Europe, exactly what Kramer reported.)

Click to expand...

That could be but would contradict the earlier 10:8 balance. It remains a riddle.

Hoad d. Rosewall 5 times in South Africa and 3 times in Asia, together 8 times. Thus for Europe remain only 6 Hoad wins...

He seems to be very negative about both Gonzales and Hoad.
He claims that Hoad "didn't give a damn" about less important events, and "was never very interested in tennis", an opinion echoed by Laver this year. He rates Hoad and Laver in the second level tier of greatness, below even Perry. This cannot be serious.
He rates Gonzales below several players as well, including Hoad when playing well. Again, hard to believe.

Click to expand...

Well you have to take into account that while no one can reasonably dispute that Kramer didn't know his tennis that many of the top ranked players in Kramer's list were his friends. He ranks Ted Schroeder, perhaps his best friend, with the second tier which is the same level he ranks Hoad, Laver and Rosewall. He ranks his heroes Don Budge and Vines as the two best which actually is an opinion echoed by many so I can't say it was a bad choice but still he could have been partial toward them.

He ranks Bobby Riggs, another friend slightly ahead of Pancho Gonzalez. Now Riggs is a very underrated player but I don't think he can rank ahead of Pancho Gonzalez.

Well you have to take into account that while no one can reasonably dispute that Kramer didn't know his tennis that many of the top ranked players in Kramer's list were his friends. He ranks Ted Schroeder, perhaps his best friend, with the second tier which is the same level he ranks Hoad, Laver and Rosewall. He ranks his heroes Don Budge and Vines as the two best which actually is an opinion echoed by many so I can't say it was a bad choice but still he could have been partial toward them.

He ranks Bobby Riggs, another friend slightly ahead of Pancho Gonzalez. Now Riggs is a very underrated player but I don't think he can rank ahead of Pancho Gonzalez.

Click to expand...

I think that he rates Riggs and Perry so high so that his absolute personal favourites, Budge and Vines, get pushed up to the top.